Falsely accused, Wrongfully convicted, and Sentenced: Incarcerated for 13 years of a 59 years in prison for sexual assault and lesser charges.

The Los Angeles case was the opposite of “overwhelming evidence of guilt.” On the eve of the jury trial, the prosecution dismissed nearly three dozen counts (and the majority of the complainants) against Anand Jon. The jury was hopelessly deadlocked for almost two weeks on the remaining counts; eventually (after numerous anomalies and continuances) they returned a mixed verdict ( not guilty, guilty, and a handful of \hung\) that included one count of rape solely based on testimony of an adult woman (the only complainant to make a police report within a day or get medical assistance) whose medical report/rape kit was NEGATIVE and stated “No Assault Related Findings.”

Because favorable (Brady) evidence was withheld during the prosecution and trial by the lead law enforcement agency (Beverly Hills Police Department “BHPD”) until 2016-2018, it allowed prosecutors to inject voluminous, harmful false evidence to be presented at the Los Angeles trial. Neither the Los Angeles jury, nor the courts (trial, appellate, or initial writ files) were provided a full and fair picture of the facts. These deliberate tactical delays by law enforcement were in turn were used to deny relief in the trial court when it cited Anand Jon’s alleged “untimeliness” as a procedural bar to Anand Jon Alexander’s initial writ(2013-2016 Not only does the evidence recovered post-trial undercut the prosecution’s case in chief, but Anand Jon’s acquittal would have been virtually assured. For example, the same out of state cases that were resolved in Anand Jon's favor were the very same unadjudicated \corroborating evidence\ used by the L A prosecution to mislead the jury into falsely believing that Anand Jon used drugging, possessed “illegal child porn” on his computers, and had a “very rich history of sexual violence” in other states. The prejudice resulting from this false evidence the fraudulent presumption. Of guilt and subsequent deception was enormous.

Furthermore, post-trial investigations and the evidence withheld by police for a decade shows law enforcement knew Anand Jon was set up. Law enforcement went so far as to coerce and threaten witnesses in order to “find more women…to make the case” to incriminate Anand Jon. Also, the Los Angeles prosecution lied and improperly vouched that their witnesses “did not know each other” and had “no motives of publicity or money. ” Similarlycourt their witnesses had no impeachment or credibility issues. While the prosecution improperly vouched for the credibility and extreme good character of these nefarious women, it has recently been discovered that several of them had serious credibility issues, including one that had a history of making similar false allegations. Others had known criminal histories and convictions for crimes of violence against people, moral turpitude, illegal drug use, and mental instability (with court ordered psychological treatment).

Unfortunately, Anand Jon’s own trial attorneys were so entangled with disturbing conflicts of interest, their performance was far below any acceptable reasonable standard. For example, the trial judge repeatedly admonished them for not filing briefs and expecting the prosecution to do the defense’s job. When Anand Jon was forced to fire them during sentencing, the trial judge in denying his Pro Se Motion for New Trial (August 31, 2009), specifically stated how Anand Jon’s trial attorneys had previously argued but failed to support their own defense theory and arguments with evidence. In fact, the court invited a Anand Jon Alexander to file a writ of habeas corpus and offered to bring [Anand Jon] back for a new trial if and when these then suspected due process violations were substantiated with evidence. Such exculpatory and impeaching evidence not only existed at that time, but the police had withheld much of it while with reasonable diligence, the attorneys would have found it.

• no history of physical violence
• no evidence of violence
• not even a scratch upon any alleged complainant
• no history of drug possession or use

Over the next several years, Anand Jon diligently pursued his defense in the overlapping charges in the other jurisdictions. First, he went to trial in New York where the prosecutor independently dropped 39 counts prior to trial. Furthermore, during jury selection, the prosecutor offered otherwise unavailable, but critical, favorable materials towards Anand Jon’s pending writ of habeas in California state court in exchange for his “time served” plea deal involving any one single count of Anand Jon's choice. Upon his demand for trial in Houston (December 13, 2013), and then again in Dallas (May 25, 2018), the prosecutors dropped all charges. http://www.indialife.us/m/article.php?id=99457

The recently dismissed charges in the overlapping out of state cases that were used to fraudulently corroborate evidence and witness testimony to convict Anand Jon, retroactively compels relief in the already dubious California “convictions.” Anand Jon not only won the overlapping cases brought by his California accusers in Texas (three counts) and New York (48 counts); whereby, the multi-jurisdiction has fallen apart at the seams, all the way back to demand relief in California. To date, Anand Jon has suffered nearly 13 years of an inapposite draconian 59 years to life prison sentence.